WALI MOHD Vs. MOIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -HEARD Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Yadav, learned Counsel, who has appeared through caveat for landlord-respondent.

(2.) LANDLORD respondent after purchasing the accommodation through the registered sale deed dated 9. 7. 2001 filed suit for eviction against tenant petitioner in the form of S. C. C. Suit No. 266 of 2002, Moin Khan v. Wali Mohd. The only ground of eviction mentioned in the plaint is default. According to the learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner, tenant petitioner deposited the entire arrears of rent along with cost etc. on the first date of hearing. The Court is unable to understand that in case entire amount had been deposited on the first date of hearing, why advantage of section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not granted to the tenant petitioner and suit was not decided then and there. None of the Counsel is in a position to give satisfactory reply to this query. Thereafter, it appears that there was some delay in depositing the subsequent monthly rent on three or four occasions, hence on the application of the landlord, Trial Court/j. S. C. C, Kanpur Nagar through order dated 7. 5. 2004 struck off the defence of the tenant petitioner under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. Against the said order, tenant petitioner filed S. C. C. Revision No. 52 of 2004, Walli Mohd. v. Moin Khan, which has been dismissed on 16. 4. 2008 by A. D. J. , Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar, hence this writ petition.

(3.) AS controversy involved in this writ petition is quite short, hence on the suggestion of the Court, learned Counsel for the landlord respondent agrees for final arguments against the writ petition without filing counter-affidavit.